Search Decisions

Decision Text

ARMY | BCMR | CY1997 | 9709739
Original file (9709739.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied
APPLICANT REQUESTS: Correction of his military records by adding his new social security number (SSN), and then referring his file to a Stand-by Advisory Board (STAB).

APPLICANT STATES : That in 1996 he was advised by the Social Security Administration that he had been using the wrong SSN. Since then he has been trying to get his military records corrected. As his records may have contained either SSN he feels that his corrected records should go before a STAB for possible promotion.

EVIDENCE OF RECORD : The applicant's military records show:

The applicant enlisted in the Regular Army on 6 November 1985 under SSN ………. He has remained on active duty thru continuous reenlistment. At the time of his application he was serving in pay grade E-6.

In an advisory opinion to the Board (COPY ATTACHED), the Enlisted Records and Evaluation Center (EREC) advised that EREC has corrected the SSN in the applicant’s record. Although the applicant’s record may have contained the incorrect SSN, the number he initially provided, 1997 SFC/
E-7 Selection Board did see all documents. It appears that the only document not seen was the applicant’s photograph. EREC recommended that the applicant’s records be considered by a STAB.

Army Regulation 600-8-19, paragraphs 4-16 and 4-18, provide guidance for convening a STAB. Specifically, the absence of an official photograph or presence of an outdated photograph is not considered material error that would warrant reconsideration.

DISCUSSION : Considering all the evidence, allegations, and information presented by the applicant, together with the evidence of record, applicable law and regulations, and advisory opinion(s), it is concluded:

1. Through administrative action, the applicant’s record has been corrected to reflect his proper SSN.

2. According to EREC, even though the applicant’s records may have contained the incorrect SSN, which he initially provided, his records were seen by the 1997 SFC/E-7 Selection Board.

3. Notwithstanding EREC’s recommendation, there is no evidence, either of record or presented by the applicant, that material error or injustice occurred that meets the standard for referral to a STAB.

4. In view of the foregoing, there is no basis for granting the applicant's request.

DETERMINATION : The applicant has failed to submit sufficient relevant evidence to demonstrate the existence of probable error or injustice.

BOARD VOTE :

GRANT

GRANT FORMAL HEARING

DENY APPLICATION




                                                      Karl F. Schneider
                                                      Acting Director

Similar Decisions

  • ARMY | BCMR | CY1997 | 9709739C070209

    Original file (9709739C070209.TXT) Auto-classification: Denied

    APPLICANT REQUESTS: Correction of his military records by adding his new social security number (SSN), and then referring his file to a Stand-by Advisory Board (STAB). As his records may have contained either SSN he feels that his corrected records should go before a STAB for possible promotion. In an advisory opinion to the Board (COPY ATTACHED), the Enlisted Records and Evaluation Center (EREC) advised that EREC has corrected the SSN in the applicant’s record.

  • ARMY | BCMR | CY2002 | 2002074854C070403

    Original file (2002074854C070403.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    APPLICANT REQUESTS: In effect, that all documents relating to his request for correction/removal from his Official Military Personnel File (OMPF) of a Noncommissioned Officer Evaluation Report (NCOER) for the period February 1994 through January 1995 be removed from the restricted portion (R-Fiche) of his OMPF; that the NCOERs on file in his record dating from 1 July 1996 be corrected to reflect service in the rank and pay grade of sergeant first class/E-7, (SFC/E-7), vice staff sergeant/E-6...

  • ARMY | BCMR | CY2001 | 2001052654C070420

    Original file (2001052654C070420.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    The applicant requests correction of military records as stated in the application to the Board and as restated herein. He states that he assumes that his records would also be presented to the STAB for consideration following the MSG board based on his back dated rank to SFC. The applicant indicates he has not.

  • ARMY | BCMR | CY2014 | 20140006827

    Original file (20140006827.txt) Auto-classification: Approved

    The applicant requests reconsideration for promotion to sergeant first class (SFC)/E7 by a Department of the Army (DA) Enlisted Standby Advisory Board (STAB), based on the decision promulgated by the Army Board for Correction of Military Records (ABCMR) in Docket Number AR20110023559, dated 22 March 2012. The applicant states: * he requested the removal from his records of an incorrect DA Form 2166-8 (Noncommissioned Officer (NCO) Evaluation Report (NCOER)) from the 2008 timeframe...

  • ARMY | BCMR | CY2014 | 20140016579

    Original file (20140016579.txt) Auto-classification: Approved

    Additionally, the signatures in Part II (Authentication), in item c (Rated NCO) and item d (Name of Reviewer) of the contested NCOER, are forgeries. The senior rater will obtain the rated NCO’s signature or enter the appropriate statement "NCO refuses to sign" or "NCO unavailable for signature." (1) If he is selected for promotion by the Standby Advisory Board and he is otherwise qualified, his record should be corrected by establishing his sergeant first class promotion effective date and...

  • ARMY | BCMR | CY1997 | 9711786

    Original file (9711786.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    On 18 July 1995, his Request for Regular Army Reenlistment or Extension shows his date of entry on current enlistment was 8 November 1989 for a 6 year period.) In an opinion to the Board (COPY ATTACHED), the Total Army Personnel Command (PERSCOM) notes that, based on the absence of the NCO-ER for ending period October 1991, the applicant’s records will be made available for consideration by the May 1998 Standby Advisory Board (STAB) under the 1993 criteria. The applicant was not granted...

  • ARMY | BCMR | CY2003 | 2003088488C070403

    Original file (2003088488C070403.rtf) Auto-classification: Approved

    The applicant appealed the QMP action, and submitted the same packet he now provides to this Board in support of this appeal. If, for whatever reasons, the relief does not occur on the date the NCO is removed from his or her duty position or responsibilities, the suspended period of time between the removal and the relief will be nonrated time included in the period of the relief report. The evidence of record confirms that on 2 October 1996, subsequent to the completion of the...

  • ARMY | BCMR | CY2005 | 20050011565C070206

    Original file (20050011565C070206.doc) Auto-classification: Approved

    In all of these reports, he received “Among the Best” evaluations from his raters in Part Va. (Rater. In Part IVb-f of the contested report, the rater gave the applicant four “Success” ratings and one “Needs Improvement (Some)” rating. The senior rater also informed the ESRB that he counseled the applicant during the contested rating period, which is documented in a DA Form 4856, dated 25 April 02.

  • ARMY | BCMR | CY2008 | 20080006513

    Original file (20080006513.txt) Auto-classification: Approved

    Therefore, notwithstanding the ESRB determination that promotion reconsideration was not applicable, it is concluded that it would be appropriate and serve the interest of justice to grant an exception to policy that would allow the applicant’s record to be placed before a STAB, for promotion reconsideration to MSG using the criteria used by all MSG promotion selection boards that considered the applicant for promotion while the invalid NCOER was on file in his OMPF. If the STAB selects the...

  • ARMY | BCMR | CY2003 | 2003087561C070212

    Original file (2003087561C070212.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    The Commander, PERSCOM, will determine if a material error existed in a soldier's record when the file was reviewed by the selection board. The evidence of record shows that the applicant was properly considered for promotion to MSG by the CY01 and CY02 AGR MSG/SGM Selection Board but was not selected. BOARD DETERMINATION/RECOMMENDATION: